Possession of disputed property and relevant orders restraining transfer of land during litigation are crucial factors in determining bail in a land dispute case.

Headnote:
Bail - Land Dispute - The court granted bail to the accused in a case involving a land dispute, considering the fact that the accused were apparently in possession of the disputed plot and that the complainant party wanted to dispossess them. The court also took into account the relevant orders restraining the parties from transferring the land during the pendency of the litigation.
Fact of the Case:

The prosecution alleged that the accused party wrongly mutated their name as the owner of a disputed plot, and when the prosecution witnesses were present on the plot, the accused party assaulted them, causing fatal injury to the deceased Subhash.
Finding of the Court:

The court considered the possession of the disputed plot by the accused, the motive of the complainant party, and the relevant orders restraining the transfer of the land. Based on these factors, the court granted bail to the accused.
Issues: Possession of disputed plot, motive of the complainant party, relevant orders restraining transfer of land
Ratio Decidendi: The possession of the disputed plot by the accused and the motive of the complainant party were key factors in the court's decision to grant bail. Additionally, the court considered the orders restraining the transfer of the land during the litigation.
Final Decision: The court directed the accused to be released on bail upon furnishing two sureties and personal bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

JUDGMENT

1. - Heard and perused the case diary. Land of Khasra No. 718 situated in Village Bawadi Gopinath is the bone of contention between the parties. The case of the prosecution is that the said plot was in the tenancy of the prosecution party but the accused party got their name mutated thereupon wrongly. Regarding the occurrence, the prosecution case is that when the prosecution witnesses were there on the disputed plot, the accused party reached there and opened an assault upon them causing fatal injury to Subhash (deceased).

2. The statements of Ramvilas Patwari, Anil informant and Gajanand were readover to me and it was highlighted that the accused party were apparently in possession of the plot in dispute and that it was the complainant party which wanted to dispossese them therefrom. It was submitted that Harphool, Kailash, Mahesh and Badri co-accused who all were attributed injuries caused to the deceased Subhash, were admitted to bail and only Jagannath co-accused who was attributed fatal blow to the deceased, was denied bail and therefore, the applications who have not been specifically attributed any injury caused to the deceased, should also be admitted to bail. On the other hand, it was submitted that vide his order dated 12.8.97 the A.C.R in a suit under section 212, Rajasthan Tenancy Act had forbidden the parties from transferring the suit property during pendency of the suit.

3. I have considered the rival submission and have gone through the relevant orders granting bail to the co-accused and also restraining the parties from transferring the land in dispute, during the pendency of the litigation.Looking to the fact and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the applicants (1) Hanuman Sahai, (2) Kalla alias Kalyan Sahai, (3) Sita Ram, (4) Om Prakash, (5) Shri Krishan, (6) Shrawan Kumar, (7) Jai Narayan and (8) Jagan, accused in FIR No. 76/99 Police Station Govindgarh, Distt. Jaipur shall be released on bail on their furnishing two sureties in the amount of Rs. 10,000/- each with personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned court.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(Raj) 1412

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHM.A.A.Khan, J.Jagan - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentS.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4450 of 99; 4398 of 99.Decided On : 24-09-1999

Possession of disputed property and relevant orders restraining transfer of land during litigation are crucial factors in determining bail in a land dispute case.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
M.A.A.Khan, J.
Jagan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 4450 of 99; 4398 of 99.
Decided On : 24-09-1999